Btw If pagans wanted to kill Muhhamad they could have easily done that. They had all the time in the world and also Muhhamad wasnt powerful when he was in mecca so the excuse that pagans wanted to kill him is ludicrous. Also when Muhhamad left Mecca his family and some muslims still stayed in mecca. How come they werent tortured or killed?

Muhammad wasn't very powerful, but he had the protection of his tribe. (unlike the muslim slaves who were tortured and killed) People who tried to kill him either did it out of anger, as in the case of 'Uqbah strangling him, or Umar who intented to kill Muhammad before he was guided to islam, but stopped when someone knocked some sense in to him, saying: "Umar, I am sure, your soul has deceived you, do you think that Banu ‘Abd Munaf would let you walk on earth if you slain Muhammad [pbuh]?" or they were simply suicidal, such as Abu Jahl saying "I now make a vow to Allah, that I shall wait for him tomorrow with a stone as large as I can carry and when he prostrates himself in prayer, I shall smash his head with it! After that you may either surrender me or defend me."

Further people of different faiths lived quite tolerantly inspite of the differences in their religion. How come they lived peacefully inspite of practicing monotheism and polytheism? IT was only Muhhamad who was targeted because he was the culprit.

Muhammad preached a new religion, and gained a relatively large following. So he was a threat to the pagan religion. And no, it was not only Muhammad who was targeted. What about the more than 80 muslims who were forced to flee from their and homes and even families to Ethiopia? I actually read in Ali Sina's book that he claimed they only went there because Muhammad told them to, apparently for no reason other than him being narcissist. Ali Sina clearly never read Bukhari though, because we find that it wasn't even Muhammad's idea:Bukhari; Volume 4, Book 56, Number 809:

Narrated Khabbab bin Al-Arat:

We complained to Allah's Apostle (of the persecution inflicted on us by the pagans) while he was sitting in the shade of the Ka'ba, leaning over his Burd (i.e. covering sheet). We said to hi-m, "Would you seek help for us? Would you pray to Allah for us?" He said, "Among the nations before you a (believing) man would be put in a ditch that was dug for him, and a saw would be put over his head and he would be cut into two pieces; yet that (torture) would not make him give up his religion. His body would be combed with iron combs that would remove his flesh from the bones and nerves, yet that would not make him abandon his religion. By Allah, this religion (i.e. Islam) will prevail till a traveler from Sana (in Yemen) to Hadrarmaut will fear none but Allah, or a wolf as regards his sheep, but you (people) are hasty.The persecution became so severe, that many Muslims in Meccah migrated to Abyssinia to escape it.You see? It was not just Muhammad, but his followers who were targetted as well. Also:

Ibn Ishaq (p. 267):When Islam began to spread in Mecca, the Quraysh imprisoned its believers or sought to turn them away from Islam.

And;

The apostle had not been given permission to fight, or allowed to shed blood…He had simply been ordered to call men to God and endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion, and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia [Ethiopia], others to Medina. (p. 212)

And

Allah had not then given His apostle permission to fight. He had given permission neither to wage war nor to shed blood, but only to call men to Allah, to endure insults patiently, and to pardon the ignorant. Some of the followers of the apostle had therefore been forced to flee from persecution into the countryside, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina and elsewhere. When the Quraysh rejected the mercy of Allah and spurned His prophet, they tormented or drove away men who proclaimed the One‑ness of Allah, believed in His prophet, and adhered to His religion.

Btw you have a problem when 1-2 meccans tried to strangle him or beat him up but you have no problem with Muhhamad did with them. Killing them is OK If muhhamad does it but its unethical if the pagans just tried to do that. Thats hypocrisy!

I have no problem with Muhammad executing people who deserved to die, such as people who waged war against him or tried to kill him.

In the battle of Badr all the pagans were killed by Muhhamad.

No they were not. only around 70 out of 900 pagans were killed.

The battle of Badr was no way defensive. It was all Muhhamad's fault. see this"

Ibn Ishaq 428 wrote:Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.”

This is rubbish. Just because Muhammad initiated the skirmish doesn't mean he wasn't fighting in defense or for justice. The battle of badr was a defensive and just act from the muslims in exactly the same way as the invasion of Normadee was a defensive and just act from the Allies in the second world war.

Also what about the battle of Uhud? The pagans had no intention other than to kill all Muslims. Did Muhammad kill all pagans when he returned to Mecca after a decade of being forced into exile and out of his home? No.

PAgans retaliate and yes 1-2 pagans became extreme but you shift the blame on all the pagans for that. Thats unfair! . Also they didnt murder him even when they could have done that easily !

No. A representative of every pagan tribe tried to kill him.

Further Muhhamad tries to rob their caravans and it leads to war and muhhamad kills the pagans who ridiculed or tried to strangle him. YOu have no problem with Muhhamad when he kills them.

He did not kill them for beliefs, or for preaching, or for upsetting a balance in a town. Yes, people who tried to kill him deserve to be executed, so does the people who waged an unjust war against him.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 314:

Narrated Abu Talha:

On the day of Badr, the Prophet ordered that the corpses of twenty four leaders of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badr. (It was a habit of the Prophet that whenever he conquered some people, he used to stay at the battle-field for three nights. So, on the third day of the battle of Badr, he ordered that his she-camel be saddled, then he set out, and his companions followed him saying among themselves." "Definitely he (i.e. the Prophet) is proceeding for some great purpose." When he halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraish infidels by their names and their fathers' names, "O so-and-so, son of so-and-so and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Apostle? We have found true what our Lord promised us. Have you too found true what your Lord promised you? "'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!" Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, you do not hear, what I say better than they do." (Qatada said, "Allah brought them to life (again) to let them hear him, to reprimand them and slight them and take revenge over them and caused them to feel remorseful and regretful.")

Haven't I shown you the hell Muhammad and his followers went through in Meccah? And then you cry because he mocked people who waged an unjust war against him? What did the allies do with Mussolini?

Whether MOhammad was persecuted or not should not even be a question for debate because if he was the messenger of God, then he should have had the power of persuasion to turn enemies into friends which he clearly did not have or use.

The greatest of all straw-men. And it was mainly not Muhammad, but his followers who were persecuted.

You havent answered me. AS far as this quote goes again it sounds that Abu Jahl was preparing for war . Your assumption here is Abu Jahl did this planning before Muhhamad raided the pagan caravans and hence Muhhamad raiding their caravans is OK .If this planning was done before Muhhamad raided the caravans then you could have a point otherwise Abu jahl is right in his position. Also Why would a person from every single tribe fight Muhhamad unless there was some serious problem with Muhhamad? This only shows that Muhhamad was the culprit and not the others.

Yup. It was done before Muhammad raided any caravan. All Muhammad had done was to agree to come to Medina where he would be protected by some of the recent converts there: (From Ibn Ishaq)

'The apostle of Allah came with his uncle al‑Abbas, an unbeliever who nevertheless wished to see his nephew conclude a firm alliance. Al‑Abbas spoke first, saying, "You know that Muhammad is our kinsman! We have protected him against those of our own people who oppose him. He enjoys dignity among his people, and protection in his country; nevertheless, he shuns them and wishes to ally himself with you. If, therefore you think you can keep your promise and protect him against his enemies, you may assume the burden you have undertaken; but if there is any likelihood of your surrendering and abandoning him after he has gone over to you, then leave him be for he is safer among his own people." Then we asked the apostle for his opinion and he said, "I call on you to protect me as you would protect your own women and children!" A man called al‑Bara then took hold of his hand, and swore, "We shall protect you against everything from which we protect our own selves. Accept therefore our allegiance. We are warriors who have inherited the right to arms."

'This speech was interrupted by Abul‑Haytham, who said, "We have ties with other men (he meant the Jews) which we should have to sever. If we do this, and Allah aids you to victory, will you not return to your own people and abandon us?" The apostle of Allah smiled and replied, "By no means. Blood is blood, and shedding is shedding; you belong to me and I to you’.

I shall fight those whom you fight, and I shall be at peace with him who is at peace with you. Bring me twelve leaders who may be charged with their people's affairs." And they brought nine men from the Khazraj tribe and three from the Aus tribe.

The apostle of Allah said to the twelve leaders' "You are the sureties for your people just as Jesus' disciples were, and I stand surety for my people." And they agreed.

Al-Abbas asked the people, "Are you aware of the conditions on which you pledge allegiance to this man? You pledge yourselves ­to him, to wage war against all and sundry. If your possessions should be ruined by misfortune and your nobles slain, and you should give him up, then you will reap shame in this world and the next. If, however, you think you can keep your promises in the face of all misfortune, then it will profit you in this world and the next ." They replied, "We shall take him even at the risk of losing all else", and turning to the apostle they asked, "But what will be our reward if we keep our promise?" He replied, “Paradise" and they said "Stretch forth thy hand", and paid homage.'

See? He agreed to come to Medina to be protected only. That's when a representative of every tribe tried to murder him.

Also, lets look at the full report of what I posted:

When they all began to discuss the problem of Muhammad, one of them said, ‘Put him in irons, imprison him, and wait till he dies as has happened to other poets before him.’ Then the sheikh exclaimed, ‘No, by Allah! If you incarcerate him as you propose, the news will leak out to his companions and they will undoubtedly attack you and liberate him. Then, through his agency they will so increase in number as to conquer you. This is not the thing to do; you must devise another plan !’ They consulted further, and another man said, ‘We shall expel him from our midst, and exile him from our country. After he departs, we care not where he goes nor what happens to him as long as we can arrange our affairs and re‑establish peace amongst us.’ ikh said again, ‘No, by Allah! Do you not realize that by his fine conversation, his sweetness of speech, and his power over the hearts of men, he could conquer any Arab encampment in which he might settle; then the people would follow him, march against you, and deprive you of your supremacy. After that he could deal with you just as he liked. Therefore think of another plan.’Abu Jahl at last exclaimed, ‘By Allah I I have a plan which none of you has yet thought of’, and they asked, ‘What is it, o father of wisdom?’ He said, ‘I propose that from every tribe we should take one young, powerful, well‑born man. To each of these, we should give a good sword with which to strike Muham­mad. So we shall be delivered of him, his blood will be divided among all the tribes, and his followers will not have the strength to make war on so many.’ The sheikh said, ‘I see no other plan and the people adopted the proposal and then dispersed.

See how they're discussing how they should kill him? And then finally agreeing on Abu Jahl's plan? Were they afraid Muhammad would destroy them? No. They were afraid he would bring justice and remove their supremacy, and punish them for the wrongs they have committed against the muslims.

Truthsayer,Was the persecution faced by Mohammad worse than the persecution faced by people who criticize islam today especially in Islamic countries? and please do not consider anti-islam stuff on the web ?

“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.”

Skynightblaze wrote:Btw If pagans wanted to kill Muhhamad they could have easily done that. They had all the time in the world and also Muhhamad wasnt powerful when he was in mecca so the excuse that pagans wanted to kill him is ludicrous. Also when Muhhamad left Mecca his family and some muslims still stayed in mecca. How come they werent tortured or killed?

Muhammad wasn't very powerful, but he had the protection of his tribe. (unlike the muslim slaves who were tortured and killed) People who tried to kill him either did it out of anger, as in the case of 'Uqbah strangling him, or Umar who intented to kill Muhammad before he was guided to islam, but stopped when someone knocked some sense in to him, saying: "Umar, I am sure, your soul has deceived you, do you think that Banu ‘Abd Munaf would let you walk on earth if you slain Muhammad [pbuh]?" or they were simply suicidal, such as Abu Jahl saying "I now make a vow to Allah, that I shall wait for him tomorrow with a stone as large as I can carry and when he prostrates himself in prayer, I shall smash his head with it! After that you may either surrender me or defend me."

Lies do not stand for long. Decide for yourself whether he was protected or not .IF Muhhamad was protected then how could quraysh systematically persecute him and his followers as you claim? Also why did Muhhamad run away from mecca fearing that they would kill him? There was no reason for him to be afraid of quraysh if he was protected. The reality is Meccans were a tolerant bunch and they tolerated Muhhamad and didnt kill him even when they could have easily done that but they persecuted a gang of bandits whose leader was Muhhamad so still there is nothing that warrants killing the pagans.

Truthsayer wrote:

Spoiler! :

Skynightblaze wrote:Further people of different faiths lived quite tolerantly inspite of the differences in their religion. How come they lived peacefully inspite of practicing monotheism and polytheism? IT was only Muhhamad who was targeted because he was the culprit.

Muhammad preached a new religion, and gained a relatively large following. So he was a threat to the pagan religion. And no, it was not only Muhammad who was targeted.

only went there because Muhammad told them to, apparently for no reason other than him being narcissist. Ali Sina clearly never read Bukhari though, because we find

that it wasn't even Muhammad's idea:

Bukhari; Volume 4, Book 56, Number 809:

Narrated Khabbab bin Al-Arat:We complained to Allah's Apostle (of the persecution inflicted on us by the pagans) while he was sitting in the shade of the Ka'ba, leaning over his Burd (i.e. covering sheet). We said to hi-m, "Would you seek help for us? Would you pray to Allah for us?" He said, "Among the nations before you a (believing) man would be put in a ditch that was dug for him, and a saw would be put over his head and he would be cut into two pieces; yet that (torture) would not make him give up his religion. His body would be combed with iron combs that would remove his flesh from the bones and nerves, yet that would not make him abandon his religion. By Allah, this religion (i.e. Islam) will prevail till a traveler from Sana (in Yemen) to Hadrarmaut will fear none but Allah, or a wolf as regards his sheep, but you (people) are hasty.The persecution became so severe, that many Muslims in Meccah migrated to Abyssinia to escape it.You see? It was not just Muhammad, but his followers who were targetted as well. Also:

Ibn Ishaq (p. 267):When Islam began to spread in Mecca, the Quraysh imprisoned its believers or sought to turn them away from Islam.

And;

The apostle had not been given permission to fight, or allowed to shed blood…He had simply been ordered to call men to God and endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion, and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia [Ethiopia], others to Medina. (p. 212)

AndAllah had not then given His apostle permission to fight. He had given permission neither to wage war nor to shed blood, but only to call men to Allah, to endure insults patiently, and to pardon the ignorant. Some of the followers of the apostle had therefore been forced to flee from persecution into the countryside, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina and elsewhere. When the Quraysh rejected the mercy of Allah and spurned His prophet, they tormented or drove away men who proclaimed the One-ness of Allah, believed in His prophet, and adhered to His religion.

All right I have to agree with you that Muhhamad and other muslims were persecuted but this doesnt answer my question as to how could jews ,Christians and pagans could live side by side peacefully. They could because they knew how to live in peace but the pagans only had beef with Muhhamad and his men. If Muhhamad and his followers were persecuted for preaching monotheism then we should also be seeing accounts where pagans persecuted any jews or christians for that matter.There exists no such account sadly for you which indicates that pagans were a peaceful bunch.

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:Btw you have a problem when 1-2 meccans tried to strangle him or beat him up but you have no problem with Muhhamad did with them. Killing them is OK If muhhamad does it but its unethical if the pagans just tried to do that. Thats hypocrisy!

I have no problem with Muhammad executing people who deserved to die, such as people who waged war against him or tried to kill him.

AS far as waging war is concerned the meccans were justified in waging war. Infact what they did can hardly be called as a war. You cant expect the pagans to keep quiet when Muhhamad insulted them. Meccans warned him several times before resorting to any action so you have no point here . As far as killing is concerned meccans never pre planned his murder. They could have easily got rid of Muhhamad. The only plan that they made is Abu Jahl suggesting every single tribe should have a person who should kill Muhhamad.I have answered that in my next post.

TruthSayer wrote:

skynightblaze wrote:In the battle of Badr all the pagans were killed by Muhhamad.

No they were not. only around 70 out of 900 pagans were killed.

70 were killed and 70 were captured but they were 900 in number . What happened to the rest of them? Also let me ask you a question here. ITs said in the quran that an army of 1000 angels was sent down to help Muhhamad . 1000 angels + muslims could kill only 70? God sends down 1000's of angels to destroy the meccan army of 1000 soldiers and could destroy only 70 ? How can you believe in such stupidity? Its laughable.

Truthsayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:The battle of Badr was no way defensive. It was all Muhhamad's fault. see this"

Ibn Ishaq 428 wrote:Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise,

accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.”

This is rubbish. Just because Muhammad initiated the skirmish doesn't mean he wasn't fighting in defense or for justice. The battle of badr was a defensive and just act from the muslims in exactly the same way as the invasion of Normadee was a defensive and just act from the Allies in the second world war.Also what about the battle of Uhud? The pagans had no intention other than to kill all Muslims. Did Muhammad kill all pagans when he returned to Mecca after a decade of being forced into exile and out of his home? No.

You are writing rubbish here.Read the part in red. Does it sound like self defense? Tell me how does one do self defense by robbing someone? This only shows how crooked Muhhamad was.

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:PAgans retaliate and yes 1-2 pagans became extreme but you shift the blame on all the pagans for that. Thats unfair! . Also they didnt murder him even when they could have done that easily !

No. A representative of every pagan tribe tried to kill him.

I have answered that below.

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:Further Muhhamad tries to rob their caravans and it leads to war and muhhamad kills the pagans who ridiculed or tried to strangle him. YOu have no problem with

Muhhamad when he kills them.

He did not kill them for beliefs, or for preaching, or for upsetting a balance in a town. Yes, people who tried to kill him deserve to be executed, so does the people who waged an unjust war against him.

When Muhhamad attacks their beliefs and insults their GOD the pagans retaliate and you call that unjust war? Secondly they didnt try to kill him until the situation became intolerable.

The statement in red is the biggest lie that you have said here. Lets see your sources for it.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 314:

Narrated Abu Talha:

On the day of Badr, the Prophet ordered that the corpses of twenty four leaders of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badr. (It was a habit of the Prophet that whenever he conquered some people, he used to stay at the battle-field for three nights. So, on the third day of the battle of Badr, he ordered that his she-camel be saddled, then he set out, and his companions followed him saying among themselves." "Definitely he (i.e. the Prophet) is proceeding for some great purpose." When he halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraish infidels by their names and their fathers' names, "O so-and-so, son of so-and-so and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Apostle? We have found true what our Lord promised us. Have you too found true what your Lord promised you? "'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!" Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, you do not hear, what I say better than they do." (Qatada said, "Allah brought them to life (again) to let them hear him, to reprimand them and slight them and take revenge over them and caused them to feel remorseful and regretful.")

See the part in red. Why did Muhhamad say you wouldnt be dead if you had obeyed Allah and his messenger? If what you said was true then we should have found Muhhamad saying something like you wont be dead if you hadnt persecuted us or waged war against us. This clearly exposes your lies. Lets see one more proof i.e verse 8:39 .

[008:039]And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

This verse was revealed in the context of the battle of Badr. The verse clearly says fight till the religion should only be for Allah.This indicates that Muhhamad wasnt fighting any defensive battle.Also lets see the tafsir of Ibn Kathir on the chapter 8 that deals with battle of Badr.

Ibn Kathir wrote:Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.)In that battle, Abu Jahl (may Allah curse him) was killed along with sixty-nine men. `Uqbah bin Abu Mua`it was captured and then killed, thus bring the death toll of the pagans to seventy,

(This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger.) joining the camp that defied Allah and His Messenger not including themselves in the camp of Allah's Law and faith in Him. Allah said,(And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is severe in punishment.) for He will crush whoever defies and disobeys Him. Nothing ever escapes Allah's grasp nor can anything ever stand against His anger. Blessed and exalted He is, there is no true deity or Lord except Him.

This should put an end to your bogus claims about battle of Badr being defensive.

Conclusion:

1)There should be no doubt in anyone's mind now that Muhhamad wasnt fighting meccans in self defense. IT was to fight them until they accept islam GOD. I have provided proofs that tell us that Muhhamad killed the meccans because they didnt submit or obey him .I have showed a hadith,tafsir of Ibn Kathir and quranic verse to back up my claims to prove this. The persecution that 8:39 talks about is what meccans did to Muhhamad. Meccans showed hostilities only when Muhhamad started causing trouble amongst them . According to his verse if non muslims retaliate then its called oppression.This is what true islam is all about.

2)From 1 we see that the activities of Quraysh are totally justified seeing what Muhhamad wanted to bring to them.Muhhamad not only insulted their GODs but also threatened the pagans to convert to islam or else kill them. This can also be seen from the quote that Khalil brought in which Muhhamad threatens the pagans of slaughter.

TruthSayer wrote:Haven't I shown you the hell Muhammad and his followers went through in Meccah? And then you cry because he mocked people who waged an unjust war against him? What did the allies do with Mussolini?

And havent I shown you that it was your prophet who started this sh!t? Meccans are bound to retaliate. The ways in which they retaliated could be classified as unethical but certainly they had to react.

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Skynightblaze wrote:You havent answered me. AS far as this quote goes again it sounds that Abu Jahl was preparing for war . Your assumption here is Abu Jahl did this planning before Muhhamad raided the pagan caravans and hence Muhhamad raiding their caravans is OK .If this planning was done before Muhhamad raided the caravans then you could have a point otherwise Abu jahl is right in his position. Also Why would a person from every single tribe fight Muhhamad unless there was some serious problem with Muhhamad? This only shows that Muhhamad was the culprit and not the others.

See? He agreed to come to Medina to be protected only. That's when a representative of every tribe tried to murder him.

I have omitted your quote which you used to prove that Muhhamad came to medina under terms of protection. I am ok with it. For brevity's sake I didnt quote you again since its long.

Truthsayer wrote:Also, lets look at the full report of what I posted:

When they all began to discuss the problem of Muhammad, one of them said, ‘Put him in irons, imprison him, and wait till he dies as has happened to other poets before him.’ Then the sheikh exclaimed, ‘No, by Allah! If you incarcerate him as you propose, the news will leak out to his companions and they will undoubtedly attack you and liberate him. Then, through his agency they will so increase in number as to conquer you. This is not the thing to do; you must devise another plan !’ They consulted further, and another man said, ‘We shall expel him from our midst, and exile him from our country. After he departs, we care not where he goes nor what happens to him as long as we can arrange our affairs and re-establish peace amongst us.’ ikh said again, ‘No, by Allah! Do you not realize that by his fine conversation, his sweetness of speech, and his power over the hearts of men, he could conquer any Arab encampment in which he might settle; then the people would follow him, march against you, and deprive you of your supremacy. After that he could deal with you just as he liked. Therefore think of another plan.’Abu Jahl at last exclaimed, ‘By Allah I I have a plan which none of you has yet thought of’, and they asked, ‘What is it, o father of wisdom?’ He said, ‘I propose that from every tribe we should take one young, powerful, well-born man. To each of these, we should give a good sword with which to strike Muham­mad. So we shall be delivered of him, his blood will be divided among all the tribes, and his followers will not have the strength to make war on so many.’ The sheikh said, ‘I see no other plan and the people adopted the proposal and then dispersed.

See how they're discussing how they should kill him? And then finally agreeing on Abu Jahl's plan? Were they afraid Muhammad would destroy them? No. They were afraid he would bring justice and remove their supremacy, and punish them for the wrongs they have committed against the muslims.Nope

Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, the author of Al-Maghazi, reported from `Abdullah bin Abi Najih, from Mujahid, from Ibn `Abbas, "Some of the chiefs of the various tribes of Quraysh gathered in Dar An-Nadwah (their conference area) and Iblis (Shaytan) met them in the shape of an eminent old man. When they saw him, they asked, `Who are you' He said, `An old man from Najd. I heard that you are having a meeting, and I wished to attend your meeting. You will benefit from my opinion and advice.' They said, `Agreed, come in.' He entered with them. Iblis said, `You have to think about this man (Muhammad)! By Allah, he will soon overwhelm you with his matter (religion).' One of them said, `Imprison him, restrained in chains, until he dies just like the poets before him all died, such as Zuhayr and An-Nabighah! Verily, he is a poet like they were.' The old man from Najd, the enemy of Allah, commented, `By Allah! This is not a good idea. His Lord will release him from his prison to his companions, who will liberate him from your hands. They will protect him from you and they might expel you from your land.' They said, `This old man said the truth. Therefore, seek an opinion other than this one.'

Another one of them said, `Expel him from your land, so that you are free from his trouble! If he leaves your land, you will not be bothered by what he does or where he goes, as long as he is not among you to bring you troubles, he will be with someone else.' The old man from Najd replied, `By Allah! This is not a good opinion. Have you forgotten his sweet talk and eloquency, as well as, how his speech captures the hearts By Allah! This way, he will collect even more followers among Arabs, who will gather against you and attack you in your own land, expel you and kill your chiefs.' They said, `He has said the truth, by Allah! Therefore, seek an opinion other than this one.' hAbu Jahl, may Allah curse him, spoke next, `By Allah! I have an idea that no one else has suggested yet, and I see no better opinion for you. Choose a strong, socially elevated young man from each tribe, and give each one of them a sharp sword. Then they would all strike Muhammad at the same time with their swords and kill him. Hence, his blood would be shed by all tribes. This way, his tribe, Banu Hashim, would realize that they cannot wage war against all of the Quraysh tribes and would be forced to agree to accept the blood money; we would have brought comfort to ourselves and stopped him from bothering us.'

The old man from Najd commented, `By Allah! This man has expressed the best opinion, and I do not support any other opinion.' They quickly ended their meeting and started preparing for the implementation of this plan.

This quote tells us the reason as to why meccans planned to execute Muhhamad . If they hadnt done that Muhhamad would have killed them so we see meccans planned in self defense.Btw you cant say that it was wishful thinking on the part of meccans here.In my previous post I have brought up Sahih Bukhari hadith, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir and also quranic verse to back this claim. So this planning was done in self defense because Muhhamads policy was accept islam or face death.

Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Sadly the Meccans were slow to act. They tolerated Muhammad, the viprous traitor in their midst - who rebelled against Meccan society and conspired to overthrow and subjugate it. Muhammad deserved death for subverting Meccan society, for converting pagans to Islam, for turning slaves against their lawful masters, for insulting the pagan gods, and for being a first rate arse-ole.

Cassie wrote:Sadly the Meccans were slow to act. They tolerated Muhammad, the viprous traitor in their midst - who rebelled against Meccan society and conspired to overthrow and subjugate it. Muhammad deserved death for subverting Meccan society, for converting pagans to Islam, for turning slaves against their lawful masters, for insulting the pagan gods, and for being a first rate arse-ole.

Slavery was not good? Was it? So there cannot be anything lawful about it. As for other acts, that is where people need to draw lessons from. A tolerance for intolerance eradicates the prophets of tolerance.

“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.”

In the context of those days, some ordinary mortals (non-prophets) kept slaves. According to Meccan society at the time, it was lawful to keep slaves, and Muhammad had no right to turn those slaves against their masters. By doing that, he deserved to be put to death.

Please note that the cultural relativism does not apply to Muhammad because he claimed to be a prophet of God FOR ALL TIME, not just for the narrow context of the seventh century desert barbarian that he was.

Lies do not stand for long. Decide for yourself whether he was protected or not .IF Muhhamad was protected then how could quraysh systematically persecute him and his followers as you claim? Also why did Muhhamad run away from mecca fearing that they would kill him? There was no reason for him to be afraid of quraysh if he was protected. The reality is Meccans were a tolerant bunch and they tolerated Muhhamad and didnt kill him even when they could have easily done that but they persecuted a gang of bandits whose leader was Muhhamad so still there is nothing that warrants killing the pagans.

His protector, Abu Talib, had recently died. And Abu Jahl devised a devious plan that could get them around the revenge of Muhammad’s tribe.

All right I have to agree with you that Muhhamad and other muslims were persecuted but this doesnt answer my question as to how could jews ,Christians and pagans could live side by side peacefully. They could because they knew how to live in peace but the pagans only had beef with Muhhamad and his men. If Muhhamad and his followers were persecuted for preaching monotheism then we should also be seeing accounts where pagans persecuted any jews or christians for that matter.There exists no such account sadly for you which indicates that pagans were a peaceful bunch.

A peaceful bunch? Are you kidding? Let’s say the muslims insulting their religion was the reason they were pissed off. Would a “peaceful bunch” Systematically torture slaves? Would they kill slaves? Would they beat up people? Would the force more than 80 people in to exile, leaving their homes and family? Would they repeatedly try to kill a man? All for insulting their religion? Also, whether Christians and jews were persecuted or not we really have no way of knowing.

70 were killed and 70 were captured but they were 900 in number . What happened to the rest of them?

They got away?

ITs said in the quran that an army of 1000 angels was sent down to help Muhhamad . 1000 angels + muslims could kill only 70? God sends down 1000's of angels to destroy the meccan army of 1000 soldiers and could destroy only 70 ? How can you believe in such stupidity? Its laughable.

You can think it’s laughable all you want, but that’s not really relevant at all. And why are you writing “only 70”? Should the goal be to kill as many as possible?

You are writing rubbish here.Read the part in red. Does it sound like self defense? Tell me how does one do self defense by robbing someone? This only shows how crooked Muhhamad was.

Please read what I wrote again. Yes, the battle of badr was started by the muslims, but the war between the muslims and pagans was started by the pagans. The battle of badr was aggressive in the same way the invasion of Normandy was aggressive.

When Muhhamad attacks their beliefs and insults their GOD the pagans retaliate and you call that unjust war? Secondly they didnt try to kill him until the situation became intolerable.

So according to you, there’s no reason for me to discuss anything with people here, I should just come to your houses and torture you? It’s amazing how you people are still going on about the murder of Theo Van Gogh, but when people torture muslims and force them into exile and kill them because they insulted some beliefs (according to you), it’s perfectly fine. What’s even scarier is you can’t see your own hypocrisy, despite it being so blatantly obvious. And how exactly was the situations for the pagans intolerable?

See the part in red. Why did Muhhamad say you wouldnt be dead if you had obeyed Allah and his messenger? If what you said was true then we should have found Muhhamad saying something like you won’t be dead if you hadnt persecuted us or waged war against us. This clearly exposes your lies.

Where’s he saying they’ve been murdered for not obeying Allah and his apostle? What he’s doing is exposing the superiority of Islam over their religion. He’s saying that they would have been pleased if they became Muslims, in this life and next. I really don’t see where you get the “Why did Muhhamad say you wouldnt be dead if you had obeyed Allah and his messenger?”

This should put an end to your bogus claims about battle of Badr being defensive.

It was an act of aggression by the Muslims in a war started by the pagans. That’s what I claimed. I know you like to think Muhammad decided to go to Medina after 13 years of being allowed to preach in Mecca, then became greedy and started robbing caravans. But that’s not what happended.

also threatened the pagans to convert to islam or else kill them

I thought you people always claimed that Muhammad was preaching tolerance in Mecca, then became intolerant in Medina. So, please show where Muhammad preached “accept islam or else” before between the muslims and the pagans started. There is no such proof, Muhammad never preached “accept me or else”, never. Not even when he ruled Arabia.

And havent I shown you that it was your prophet who started this sh!t? Meccans are bound to retaliate. The ways in which they retaliated could be classified as unethical but certainly they had to react.

[/quote][/quote]“Could be classified as unethical?” They did the following because they insulted their beliefs according to you:Murdered slaves.Systematically tortured slaves.Forced more than 80 people into exile, abandoning their homes and many their family.Tried to kill Muhammad on several occasions.Beat up muslims for the sake of it.Boycotted all muslims.Took muslims hostage.That “could be classified as unethical” ? Understatement of the century. Do you expect the Muslims to forget all that and get on with their lives in Medina? That’s asking quite a lot, isn’t it? Especially when the Quraysh held several muslim hostages. The quraysh had muslim hostages when they raided the niklas caravan by the way. So it was the pagans who started the war, unless you think insulting gods is sufficient reason to murder and wage war.

Truthsayer wrote:A peaceful bunch? Are you kidding? Let’s say the muslims insulting their religion was the reason they were pissed off. Would a “peaceful bunch” Systematically torture slaves? Would they kill slaves? Would they beat up people? Would the force more than 80 people in to exile, leaving their homes and family? Would they repeatedly try to kill a man? All for insulting their religion?

Quraysh did not force any Muslims to flee from Mecca to Abyssinia. It was Muhammad who proposed the migration knowingly; Abyssinia was predominantly Christian at that time.

Meanwhile, Quraysh could view the danger in this migration of Muslims to Abyssinia because it was the land of Abraha who once fruitlessly crossed the borders of their land to destroy their house of worship, Ka’aba. While a man named Muhammad is wandering all over Mecca threatening Quraish polytheists with slaughter, how can they be idle when the same man is sending some of his followers to an enemy territory? Abu Sufyan soon led a delegation to Abyssinia to meet the king. And their conversation is recorded in Bukhari.

Muhammad’s sending of his followers to Abyssinia confirms his Islam evolved throughout time. At first, Muhammad was bit compromising to Judaism and Christianity. He learned of monotheism from these two Abrahamaic religions, so his sending of some Muslims to a land of Christianity should be having motives other than what Islamic sources tell us.

This is the account of Abraha’s failed attempt from a Muslim perspective:

The Event of Aam-ul-Feel

Meanwhile a rumour spread among the people that Abraha had decided to demolish the Ka'aba. This caused a commotion among certain Arab people, and one Arab, hearing of Abraha's intention, went to Yemen, entered the church at night and polluted it with- his urine. This incident enraged Abraha and the Christians. They told him that, that was how much the Arabs respected his Church! Abraha asked what was the reason for that? They replied because they were devoted to Ka'aba in their heart of hearts and the news that you intended to destroy the Ka'aba had reached them. Abraha said that if that was the way it was, when it was no more than a rumour, then he was decided to destroy Ka'aba. He mobilised his forces and proceeded towards Mecca, and on his way vanquished all the Arab tribes that offered any resistance.

BTW, we know that there were Christians in Mecca while Muhammad was preaching monotheism. That means even after a Christian invader who caused much destruction to the pagan tribes of Arabia, these Meccans did not have any antagonism towards the Christian population thriving amongst them. Another proof those Meccan polytheists were a much tolerant bunch.

Truthsayer wrote:Also, whether Christians and jews were persecuted or not we really have no way of knowing.

We have a way of knowing whether Christians and Jews were persecuted by pagan Arabians. Simplest way is to check whether there was any presence of these two religionists in polytheistic Arabia then. Your holy book attests to their presence in Mecca and Medina.

And we can use the same gauge to know whether there was any persecution of Jews and Christians from Muslims' part. Shall we?

How many Jews were there in Medina after Muhammad gaining enough followers to his cult? You argued there were some, but you conveniently forget they were stationed in Khyber after Muhammad deporting them. Omar the second Caliph implemented Muhammad's advice and cleansed Arabia off Jews and Christians.

As Maududi confirms, there were three Jewish tribes (TRIBES) in Medina prior to the arrival of Muhammad there but after a couple of years of Muhammad's staying in Medina, we see these tribes vanishing. What happened to them?

Because Muhammad persecuted Jews of Medina who did not join his cult. How many martyrs were there among Muhammad's followers in Mecca for you Muslims to whine over Quraysh persecution? Two or three?

But we see Muhammad ending up the lives of 900 Jews in a single day. Not to say these were surrendered people and many children were also among the slaughtered;

This is what we call persecution. And you guys are very good in it. Muhammad taught you the lessons of it;

But we see Muhammad ending up the lives of 900 Jews in a single day. Not to say these were surrendered people and many children were also among the slaughtered;

This is what we call persecution. And you guys are very good in it. Muhammad taught you the lessons of it;

RegardsKF

On that note of killing/persecution of Jews/Christians/pagans and any one who questioned Mr. PBUH and his Islam ., let me add a link of that recent news from that sand land.

Saudis Struggle With How to Treat Pre-Islamic Artifacts Unearthed in Saudi Arabia

Last year a Saudi/French archeological team made a major discovery at Madain Saleh. Pottery and metal and wooden tools were unearthed at Al Diwan and at Ethlib mountain. The discoveries at Madain Saleh pose something of a dilemma for Saudis. We Saudis are not particularly eager to look for pre-Islamic artifacts. There's a prevailing opinion among the conservatives that items not Islamic belong in the ground because displaying them risks a tacit endorsement of the culture or religion the artifacts represent.

We have a habit sealing off ancient sites from public view whether they are Islamic or non-Islamic.We have been known to neglect or destroy them. Saudis don't want to run the risk of turning a site into a place of idolatry. As a rule we minimize the publicity of such discoveries. But as with most things, Saudis can't stop progress. And today there is a significant and successful campaign to develop an economically viable tourism industry that will create jobs and stimulate the economy, particularly in rural areas. Add to that is the fact that Madain Saleh was named in 2008 as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Madain Saleh is now open to visitors. The Saudi Commission on Tourism and Antiquities, under Secretary General Sultan Bin Salman, and the National French Research Center are continuing excavation efforts. An American team also is participating.

The teams are restoring what has been found and electronic software is being used to record the excavation and restoration efforts. The work is continuing and it's certain that more items will be unearthed.Once the Saudi government finds its footing in establishing a consistent tourism program and becomes more flexible in granting visas to Muslims and non-Muslims to visit the Kingdom, Madain Saleh should become a key component in developing a thriving tourism sector.

But offering Madain Saleh as a tourism stop is not a problem. It was first inhabited by the people of Thamud who are mentioned prominently in the Qur'an. But what of the non-Muslim sites? Like most Saudis, I know little of pre-Islamic sites, although occasionally amateur archeologists come across such places. Frankly, it's gross negligence to destroy or hide these discoveries. The government in recent years has taken positive steps to recover and catalog artifacts, but there's a disagreement with what to do with them once they are found.

It's right that churches are not permitted in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques. But what's less certain is whether crucifixes, if found, should be destroyed or hidden. More precisely is the issue of whether Christian or Jewish artifacts can be displayed in the proper context in a Saudi museum as an acknowledgment of a people who called pre-Islamic Arabia their home.

................................Most Saudis probably agree, although the argument can be made that displaying an ancient cross doesn't necessarily recognize that Christ was crucified but only acknowledges a previous non-Muslim civilization.

Religious symbols aside, there is a precedent in showcasing pre-Islamic items. The museum in Riyadh has a number of pre-Islamic statues. And Riyadh's King Saudi University has similar items. This is a sensitive time for Saudi Arabia. We have made tentative steps with the international community by promoting inter-faith dialogue. We have been diligent in sending young university students to other countries where they learn of other cultures. We are throwing open the doors of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology to the world's best researchers and scientists. Developing a policy to deal with non-Muslim antiquities is a logical step towards continuing to bridge cultural gaps.

Perhaps displays of such artifacts are not the solution, but it's not unthinkable.

read it all at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabria-ja ... 17.html.,.. Yes.. yes.. that is Islam., Thanks to Mr. PBUH and his followers ., Anything and every thing that is Pre-Islamic MUST BE DESTROYED.. Islam can not live with any other traces of cultures that were flourishing before Islam looted/burned and buried..

Truthsayer wrote:A peaceful bunch? Are you kidding? Let’s say the muslims insulting their religion was the reason they were pissed off. Would a “peaceful bunch” Systematically torture slaves? Would they kill slaves? Would they beat up people? Would the force more than 80 people in to exile, leaving their homes and family? Would they repeatedly try to kill a man? All for insulting their religion?

Quraysh did not force any Muslims to flee from Mecca to Abyssinia. It was Muhammad who proposed the migration knowingly; Abyssinia was predominantly Christian at that time.

Meanwhile, Quraysh could view the danger in this migration of Muslims to Abyssinia because it was the land of Abraha who once fruitlessly crossed the borders of their land to destroy their house of worship, Ka’aba. While a man named Muhammad is wandering all over Mecca threatening Quraish polytheists with slaughter, how can they be idle when the same man is sending some of his followers to an enemy territory? Abu Sufyan soon led a delegation to Abyssinia to meet the king. And their conversation is recorded in Bukhari.

Muhammad’s sending of his followers to Abyssinia confirms his Islam evolved throughout time. At first, Muhammad was bit compromising to Judaism and Christianity. He learned of monotheism from these two Abrahamaic religions, so his sending of some Muslims to a land of Christianity should be having motives other than what Islamic sources tell us.

This is the account of Abraha’s failed attempt from a Muslim perspective:

The Event of Aam-ul-Feel

Meanwhile a rumour spread among the people that Abraha had decided to demolish the Ka'aba. This caused a commotion among certain Arab people, and one Arab, hearing of Abraha's intention, went to Yemen, entered the church at night and polluted it with- his urine. This incident enraged Abraha and the Christians. They told him that, that was how much the Arabs respected his Church! Abraha asked what was the reason for that? They replied because they were devoted to Ka'aba in their heart of hearts and the news that you intended to destroy the Ka'aba had reached them. Abraha said that if that was the way it was, when it was no more than a rumour, then he was decided to destroy Ka'aba. He mobilised his forces and proceeded towards Mecca, and on his way vanquished all the Arab tribes that offered any resistance.

BTW, we know that there were Christians in Mecca while Muhammad was preaching monotheism. That means even after a Christian invader who caused much destruction to the pagan tribes of Arabia, these Meccans did not have any antagonism towards the Christian population thriving amongst them. Another proof those Meccan polytheists were a much tolerant bunch.

Truthsayer wrote:Also, whether Christians and jews were persecuted or not we really have no way of knowing.

We have a way of knowing whether Christians and Jews were persecuted by pagan Arabians. Simplest way is to check whether there was any presence of these two religionists in polytheistic Arabia then. Your holy book attests to their presence in Mecca and Medina.

And we can use the same gauge to know whether there was any persecution of Jews and Christians from Muslims' part. Shall we?

How many Jews were there in Medina after Muhammad gaining enough followers to his cult? You argued there were some, but you conveniently forget they were stationed in Khyber after Muhammad deporting them. Omar the second Caliph implemented Muhammad's advice and cleansed Arabia off Jews and Christians.

As Maududi confirms, there were three Jewish tribes (TRIBES) in Medina prior to the arrival of Muhammad there but after a couple of years of Muhammad's staying in Medina, we see these tribes vanishing. What happened to them?

Because Muhammad persecuted Jews of Medina who did not join his cult. How many martyrs were there among Muhammad's followers in Mecca for you Muslims to whine over Quraysh persecution? Two or three?

But we see Muhammad ending up the lives of 900 Jews in a single day. Not to say these were surrendered people and many children were also among the slaughtered;

This is what we call persecution. And you guys are very good in it. Muhammad taught you the lessons of it;

RegardsKF

I've alredy brought reports from Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq showing that it was indeed a forced persecution. Yet you've consistently ignored them, trying to steer the debate away from the subject. Now you claim they left because Muhammad told them to because Ethiopia was a christian country, without any source, of course. Let me repost the sources:

Bukhari; Volume 4, Book 56, Number 809:

Narrated Khabbab bin Al-Arat:

We complained to Allah's Apostle (of the persecution inflicted on us by the pagans) while he was sitting in the shade of the Ka'ba, leaning over his Burd (i.e. covering sheet). We said to him, "Would you seek help for us? Would you pray to Allah for us?" He said, "Among the nations before you a (believing) man would be put in a ditch that was dug for him, and a saw would be put over his head and he would be cut into two pieces; yet that (torture) would not make him give up his religion. His body would be combed with iron combs that would remove his flesh from the bones and nerves, yet that would not make him abandon his religion. By Allah, this religion (i.e. Islam) will prevail till a traveler from Sana (in Yemen) to Hadrarmaut will fear none but Allah, or a wolf as regards his sheep, but you (people) are hasty.The persecution became so severe, that many Muslims in Meccah migrated to Abyssinia to escape it.

How clear can it get? If that's not enough;

Allah had not then given His apostle permission to fight. He had given permission neither to wage war nor to shed blood, but only to call men to Allah, to endure insults patiently, and to pardon the ignorant. Some of the followers of the apostle had therefore been forced to flee from persecution into the countryside, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina and elsewhere. When the Quraysh rejected the mercy of Allah and spurned His prophet, they tormented or drove away men who proclaimed the One‑ness of Allah, believed in His prophet, and adhered to His religion. (Ibn Ishaq)

Now, please stop being dishonest. I already showed you all that, yet you ignored it and claimed the migration only occured because Ethiopia was a christian country.

First of all let me accept that I don’t have the sound knowledge of this topic but yet I am debating since I wish to learn. Correct me If go wrong anywhere.I am not ashamed to admit this..

TruthSayer wrote:His protector, Abu Talib, had recently died. And Abu Jahl devised a devious plan that could get them around the revenge of Muhammad’s tribe.

Abu Talib died in 619 Ad and Muhhamad migrated to Medina in 622 if I am not wrong and so we have 3 years in between migration to medina and Abu Talibs death. How come pagans didn’t kill him for 3 years if they wanted desperately to kill him?

Wikipedia wrote:Abū Ṭālib ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib (Arabic: أبو طالب بن عبد المطلب‎) (549 – 619) was an Arab leader, the head of the clan of Banu Hashim. He was married to Fatima bint Asad and was an uncle of Muhammad. His real name was Imran (عمران) but he is better known as Abu Talib because he had a son named Talib.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Talib_ ... l-Muttalib

Note that the author of this article mentions below somewhere again that Abu Talib died in 623 or 619. If Abu Talib died in 623 AD then there was no need for muhhamad to migrate to medina when his uncle was alive in 622 Ad since you claim that Muhhamad migrated to medina to escape being killed so the problem stays unrefuted.The death date of Abu Talib being 619 seems more accurate to me unless you can prove otherwise.Also you didn’t answer my previous question. How could Meccans systematically persecute muslims and Muhhamad if he was protected by his uncle Abu Talib.?

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:All right I have to agree with you that Muhhamad and other muslims were persecuted but this doesnt answer my question as to how could jews ,Christians and pagans could live side by side peacefully. They could because they knew how to live in peace but the pagans only had beef with Muhhamad and his men. If Muhhamad and his followers were persecuted for preaching monotheism then we should also be seeing accounts where pagans persecuted any jews or christians for that matter.There exists no such account sadly for you which indicates that pagans were a peaceful bunch.

A peaceful bunch? Are you kidding? Let’s say the muslims insulting their religion was the reason they were pissed off. Would a “peaceful bunch” Systematically torture slaves? Would they kill slaves? Would they beat up people? Would the force more than 80 people in to exile, leaving their homes and family? Would they repeatedly try to kill a man? All for insulting their religion? Also, whether Christians and jews were persecuted or not we really have no way of knowing.

Why don’t we have a way of knowing that Christians and jews were persecuted by the pagans? There is no proof of them being persecuted.Infact they cannot be persecuted as your own sources tell that that pagans had no problem with Muhhamad or anyone if they kept their religion to themselves without disturbing the pagans.

Note that Meccans weren’t any Uswa Hasanas. Beating and torturing muslims was bound to follow because your so called prophet even after being warned multiple times still resorted to abuse. Meccans were tolerant people unlike Muhhamad . This is a fact because pre islamic Arabic could leave peacefully inspite of mixed cultures and religions.Meccans had no problem if Muhhamad practiced his religion as long as he didnt mess with their folk and converted them by his sweet talks.(A Meccan belief as seen from one of the quotes)

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:70 were killed and 70 were captured but they were 900 in number . What happened to the rest of them?

They got away?

That’s why I laugh at your fake prophet's cooked up story.

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:ITs said in the quran that an army of 1000 angels was sent down to help Muhhamad . 1000 angels + muslims could kill only 70? God sends down 1000's of angels to destroy the meccan army of 1000 soldiers and could destroy only 70 ? How can you believe in such stupidity? Its laughable.

You can think it’s laughable all you want, but that’s not really relevant at all. And why are you writing “only 70”? Should the goal be to kill as many as possible?

That’s laughable mate. Your prophet was a mass murderer. Remember jews of Banu Quraiza? He killed all the 900 men on a single day. I do not wish to discuss you Banu Quraiza here as we would be drifting away from the topic and the reason I brought this was to show you that if killing as many as possible should not be a goal then there was no need of Muhhamad killing all the men above 13 years of age.None is going to buy your excuses like all the 900 men were guilty. You also give all types of reasons like they committed treason and would further start war with muslims if they hadn’t been killed but then how come in this case Allah spared 1000’s of pagans ?Wouldnt they too start a war against Muhhamad? The reality is Muhhamad was lying through his teeth when he uttered this . There was no Allah and the angels involved in the war .

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:You are writing rubbish here.Read the part in red. Does it sound like self defense? Tell me how does one do self defense by robbing someone? This only shows how crooked Muhhamad was.

Please read what I wrote again. Yes, the battle of badr was started by the muslims, but the war between the muslims and pagans was started by the pagans. The battle of badr was aggressive in the same way the invasion of Normandy was aggressive.

You keep repeating the fact that pagans started the war with Muhhamad and that’s why they were killed but then why do we find sources from your own history that tell us Muhhamad killed them because they denied Allah and his messenger.You ignored my quotes from Ibn Kathir and the verse 8:39 that I brought.Ibn Kathir clearly mentions that Muhhamad killed them because they DEFIED ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER. Note that it doesn’t say Muhhamad killed them because they attacked him or in self defense.Please explain this.

Also your signature says that Muhhamad was the best of creations. Please enlighten me how does a man who robs someone just because of his enmity be the best of creations? At the max Muhhamad gets the right of self defense and not robbing .Please answer this question too.

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:When Muhhamad insults their GOD the pagans retaliate and you call that unjust war? Secondly they didnt try to kill him until the situation became intolerable.

So according to you, there’s no reason for me to discuss anything with people here, I should just come to your houses and torture you? It’s amazing how you people are still going on about the murder of Theo Van Gogh, but when people torture muslims and force them into exile and kill them because they insulted some beliefs (according to you), it’s perfectly fine. What’s even scarier is you can’t see your own hypocrisy, despite it being so blatantly obvious. And how exactly was the situations for the pagans intolerable?

Pagans were bound to react . The only question is how much hostility should they have shown towards Muhhamad.I wouldn’t say pagans were 100 % right but neither was Muhhamad right here as you repeatedly try to show us. He had been warned plenty of times and yet he repeatedly kept hurting sentiments of people and swaying their people .If you think what pagans did was wrong please tell us what pagans should have done with Muhhamad and his men when they repeatedly abused their GODs even after being warned.

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:See the part in red. Why did Muhhamad say you wouldnt be dead if you had obeyed Allah and his messenger? If what you said was true then we should have found Muhhamad saying something like you won’t be dead if you hadnt persecuted us or waged war against us. This clearly exposes your lies.

Where’s he saying they’ve been murdered for not obeying Allah and his apostle? What he’s doing is exposing the superiority of Islam over their religion. He’s saying that they would have been pleased if they became Muslims, in this life and next. I really don’t see where you get the “Why did Muhhamad say you wouldnt be dead if you had obeyed Allah and his messenger?”

My claim can be understood from the context. If what you say is true then how exactly were meccans going to get pleased if they followed Muhhamad and his Allah? Meccans were already happy following their religion and they disliked islam so how can someone who doesn’t like Islam feel happy after following it ? .Anyway I have already brought a quote from Ibn Kathir to clarify this issue .

Ibn Kathir wrote:Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.)In that battle, Abu Jahl (may Allah curse him) was killed along with sixty-nine men. `Uqbah bin Abu Mua`it was captured and then killed, thus bring the death toll of the pagans to seventy,

(This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger.)joining the camp that defied Allah and His Messenger not including themselves in the camp of Allah's Law and faith in Him. Allah said,(And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is severe in punishment.) for He will crush whoever defies and disobeys Him. Nothing ever escapes Allah's grasp nor can anything ever stand against His anger. Blessed and exalted He is, there is no true deity or Lord except Him.

There is one more quote from Ibn Kathir that I brought up in my previous post. It states why Abu Jahl and others plotted to kill Muhhamad and it clearly indicates that Muhhamad was planning to kill them if they didnt believe in his islam.

TruthSayer wrote:

Skynightblaze wrote:This should put an end to your bogus claims about battle of Badr being defensive.

It was an act of aggression by the Muslims in a war started by the pagans. That’s what I claimed. I know you like to think Muhammad decided to go to Medina after 13 years of being allowed to preach in Mecca, then became greedy and started robbing caravans. But that’s not what happended.

I thought you people always claimed that Muhammad was preaching tolerance in Mecca, then became intolerant in Medina. So, please show where Muhammad preached “accept islam or else” before between the muslims and the pagans started. There is no such proof, Muhammad never preached “accept me or else”, never. Not even when he ruled Arabia.

Saying that Muhhamad never said Accept islam or die is a joke. There are plenty of hadiths that tell us that what kind of a moron Muhhamad was. I am sure you must be knowing them so please don’t play stupid games here.Whoever leaves islam should be killed is one of the hadith. We have self confessions from Muhhamad that he was made victorious with terror and also we have a hadith where Muhhamad tells us that he has been commanded to fight until all religion is for Allah. Your quran too attests to this fact. 8:39 and 9:29 clearly asks you believers to wage war against unbelievers until they accept islam.Do not play the context argument here because its useless since quran isn’t time bound .These verses apply even today and also saying that it was in self defense doesn’t work because by self defense you get the right to kill the other person and not make him accept islam. I have already brought up Ibn kathirs tafsir to back myself.

AS far as robbing of caravans is concerned Muhhamad should be called a thief whether you like it or not. He had no right to rob someone.

TruthSayer wrote: “Could be classified as unethical?” They did the following because they insulted their beliefs according to you:Murdered slaves.Systematically tortured slaves.Forced more than 80 people into exile, abandoning their homes and many their family.Tried to kill Muhammad on several occasions.Beat up muslims for the sake of it.Boycotted all muslims.Took muslims hostage.That “could be classified as unethical” ? Understatement of the century. Do you expect the Muslims to forget all that and get on with their lives in Medina? That’s asking quite a lot, isn’t it? Especially when the Quraysh held several muslim hostages. The quraysh had muslim hostages when they raided the niklas caravan by the way. So it was the pagans who started the war, unless you think insulting gods is sufficient reason to murder and wage war.

Let us assume that Muhhamad was right in killing pagans.You would be only right if Muhhamad killed them in self defense. Just answer one question. Why do we have reports that tell us that Muhhamad killed the pagans because they denied Muhhamad and Allah? Shouldn’t the reports stating the same exact story everywhere i.e Muhhamad killing pagans for self defense?

As I said previously meccans weren’t any USWA HASANAS. The only serious crimes that they committed was killing slaves but again if killing muslims was their aim then they would have killed all the muslims and not just a handful of slaves like 6-7.It wasnt an impossible task for them. Again in the light of the facts presented by you I would say pagans werent 100 % innocent . My claim is that Muhhamad wasnt innocent either.

Further history is written by the victorious. Even in 1 sided muslim history we can see that Muhhamad wasn’t completely innocent.

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Of course Mohammad needed to make the tribes in Medina pledge to protect him. This is because he planned to attack the caravans of the Meccans in order to use the spoils to recruit more thugs, and acquire more camels, more weapons...and he knew the Meccans would not stay passive in the face of such banditry.

How could Meccans systematically persecute muslims and Muhhamad if he was protected by his uncle Abu Talib.?

I have alredy admitted there was no systematic persecution of Muhammad as such, whatever was done against him was out of anger, which is clear from the sources. Why should the other Muslims be protectod by Abu Talib?

Abu Talib died in 619 Ad and Muhhamad migrated to Medina in 622 if I am not wrong and so we have 3 years in between migration to medina and Abu Talibs death. How come pagans didn’t kill him for 3 years if they wanted desperately to kill him?

Seems like I had a few dates wrong. I always thought the year of sorrow was the same year as the migration. Looks like I was wrong, but still, the persecution of muslims got increasingly bad with every year and after Muhammad got a chance to make a deal with the Medinittes he's of course going to do it.

Why don’t we have a way of knowing that Christians and jews were persecuted by the pagans? There is no proof of them being persecuted.Infact they cannot be persecuted as your own sources tell that that pagans had no problem with Muhhamad or anyone if they kept their religion to themselves without disturbing the pagans.

Note that Meccans weren’t any Uswa Hasanas. Beating and torturing muslims was bound to follow because your so called prophet even after being warned multiple times still resorted to abuse. Meccans were tolerant people unlike Muhhamad . This is a fact because pre islamic Arabic could leave peacefully inspite of mixed cultures and religions.Meccans had no problem if Muhhamad practiced his religion as long as he didnt mess with their folk and converted them by his sweet talks.(A Meccan belief as seen from one of the quotes)

You really cant compare the situation of muslims to that of Christians and Jews. If you could find Christians proseletyzing their faith, gaining large numbers of converts from pagans and denouncing polytheism and idol worship you may have a point.

You keep repeating the fact that pagans started the war with Muhhamad and that’s why they were killed but then why do we find sources from your own history that tell us Muhhamad killed them because they denied Allah and his messenger.You ignored my quotes from Ibn Kathir and the verse 8:39 that I brought.Ibn Kathir clearly mentions that Muhhamad killed them because they DEFIED ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER. Note that it doesn’t say Muhhamad killed them because they attacked him or in self defense.Please explain this.

First of all, the other pagans who did wage war against Muhammad were not killed. So your claim that these people were killed for not becoming muslims is bogus. Second, "Defied" can mean being agressive. All Muhammad did was mock his enemies, people who tortured and murdered his followers and waged war against them.

Also your signature says that Muhhamad was the best of creations. Please enlighten me how does a man who robs someone just because of his enmity be the best of creations? At the max Muhhamad gets the right of self defense and not robbing .Please answer this question too.

Only one caravan was robbed, and it was not approved of by Muhammad. In fact, Muhammad rebuked the people who were responsible for raiding it, even though the meccans had stolen property from the muslims and tortured them for years, and kept muslim hostages. The two people who were taken captive here were traded with the muslim hostages the Quraysh had taken. Before that happended, muslim groups that were sent out by Muhammad passed several caravans without any confrontation. The battle of Badr was started by Muhammad trying to intercept some camels and other stuff a group of meccans had looted from the muslims in Medinah. I don't see any agression on Muhammad's side, other than some counter offensives. If you think that's wrong, well, then I'd call you extremely naive, but I suppose it's fine as long you uphold everyone else, not just Muhammad, to that. Even though it'd probably be impossible to win a war if you were to follow your ideology.

Pagans were bound to react . The only question is how much hostility should they have shown towards Muhhamad.I wouldn’t say pagans were 100 % right but neither was Muhhamad right here as you repeatedly try to show us. He had been warned plenty of times and yet he repeatedly kept hurting sentiments of people and swaying their people .If you think what pagans did was wrong please tell us what pagans should have done with Muhhamad and his men when they repeatedly abused their GODs even after being warned.

Do you consider torture, murder and forcing people into exile to be appropriate actions to deal with people offending your religion? I'm not saying the Muslims didnt do anything to antagonize the pagans, but they werent hurting them in any way and were in no position to do so.

My claim can be understood from the context. If what you say is true then how exactly were meccans going to get pleased if they followed Muhhamad and his Allah? Meccans were already happy following their religion and they disliked islam so how can someone who doesn’t like Islam feel happy after following it ? .Anyway I have already brought a quote from Ibn Kathir to clarify this issue .

Of course they wouldnt have been killed if they became muslims and joined Muhammad. That still doesn't mean they were killed for not doing so. If so, what about all the other pagans who were not killed even though Muhammad could have done so if he wanted? (and would have been entitled to according to the "father of wisdow".)

And as for forced conversion, let me bring in another of Ibn kathirs tafsir.

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said ﴿that before Islam﴾, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated ﴿from Al-Madinah﴾, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)''

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

So according to Ibn Kathir, Muhammad never forced anyone to accept islam. So it seems quite opportunistic that you're using Ibn Kathir to show that he did.

Brendalee wrote:Of course Mohammad needed to make the tribes in Medina pledge to protect him. This is because he planned to attack the caravans of the Meccans in order to use the spoils to recruit more thugs, and acquire more camels, more weapons...and he knew the Meccans would not stay passive in the face of such banditry.

Oh get lost. You obviously dont have the slighest clue about what actually happended. You probably heard a few stories about muslims raiding caravans, then filled in the rest with pure guess work. There was never any systematic raid of caravans, only ONE was "raided", and that was not done on the order Muhammad.

Was it the caravan raid (successful) at Nakhla? Or was it the raid (failed) which led to the Battle of Badr? Or was the only "ONE" some other of his failed or successful caravan raids which have not yet been mentioned?

Of course if Mohammad was going to be raiding Meccan caravans (even "ONE" ), he would require a refuge. Whatever else he may have been, he was not stupid.

Was it the caravan raid (successful) at Nakhla? Or was it the raid (failed) which led to the Battle of Badr? Or was the only "ONE" some other of his failed or successful caravan raids which have not yet been mentioned?

Of course if Mohammad was going to be raiding Meccan caravans (even "ONE" ), he would require a refuge. Whatever else he may have been, he was not stupid.

Those were the only two. First of all, you're forgetting, or more like choosing to omit, that the Muslims just got off form 10 years of torture and persecution. Second, you also fail to mention that before the Nakhlas incident, a large group of Muslims passed Meccan caravans without any confrontation on several occasions. You're also failing to mention that Muhammad never ordered the Nakhlas caravan to be robbed, and that it wasn't a planned raid but an on-the-spot decision made by the expedition leader. You also omit that at the time of the Nakhlas caravan, the Meccans had several Muslim hostages, and the hostages taken from the raid were exchanged with the Muslim hostages (and one of those caravan hostages decide to stay in Medina and become muslim). You didn't mention that the Muslims paid blood-money for the one killed, and that Muhammad severely reprimanded the person in charge of the raid. You also didn't mention that before the battle of Badr, Meccans raided the muslims in Medinah, looting camels and other things. You also didn't mention that there were no caravan incidents after the battle of Badr.

Was it the caravan raid (successful) at Nakhla? Or was it the raid (failed) which led to the Battle of Badr? Or was the only "ONE" some other of his failed or successful caravan raids which have not yet been mentioned?

Of course if Mohammad was going to be raiding Meccan caravans (even "ONE" ), he would require a refuge. Whatever else he may have been, he was not stupid.

Those were the only two. First of all, you're forgetting, or more like choosing to omit, that the Muslims just got off form 10 years of torture and persecution. Second, you also fail to mention that before the Nakhlas incident, a large group of Muslims passed Meccan caravans without any confrontation on several occasions. You're also failing to mention that Muhammad never ordered the Nakhlas caravan to be robbed, and that it wasn't a planned raid but an on-the-spot decision made by the expedition leader. You also omit that at the time of the Nakhlas caravan, the Meccans had several Muslim hostages, and the hostages taken from the raid were exchanged with the Muslim hostages (and one of those caravan hostages decide to stay in Medina and become muslim). You didn't mention that the Muslims paid blood-money for the one killed, and that Muhammad severely reprimanded the person in charge of the raid. You also didn't mention that before the battle of Badr, Meccans raided the muslims in Medinah, looting camels and other things. You also didn't mention that there were no caravan incidents after the battle of Badr.

So try again.

So, first it's ONE and now it's TWO?

The Muslims NEVER were "tortured and persecuted" by the Meccans for 10 years. You have admitted that there was no systematic persecution. In fact, according to Ibn Ishaq, Mohammad himself admitted it:

"Abu Talib died some three years before he migrated to Medina, and it was THEN that Quraysh BEGAN to treat him in an offensive way, which they would not DARED to follow in his uncle's lifetime. A young lout actually threw dust on his head."

and in the very next paragraph:

"Meanwhile he was saying, "Quraysh never treated me thus while Abu Talib was alive."

(page 191. Caps and bold my emphasis)

Oh goodness! A lout threw dust on Mohammad's head? I thought that Muslims do not believe in "collective punishment". Yet a few acts by a few Meccans who disliked him (with justification in my opinion), and he needed to punish ALL Meccans by thieving from them, plotting against them, and conquering them and forcing them to convert?

Even while Abu Talib was dying, the Meccan leadership was being profoundly reasonable, asking only for Mohammad to agree that he would leave the Meccans alone and they would leave him alone; that he could have his religion and they would have theirs. How did Mohammad respond?

He arrogantly demanded that they must say that there is no God but Allah and reject their religion.

According to Ibn Ishaq, it was Mohammad who SENT the raiders to despoil the caravan at Nakhlas; so how do you now deny this? I think that Mohammad just did not realise how much his followers would object. Perhaps he thought they adored him too much to care about holy months.

It certainly made things easy. The caravan would be ripe for the plucking, relying on the custom of no war in the holy months, they would have been totally relaxed in their guard and unsuspicious, easy to approach. And, never suspecting that anyone would violate the holy months, very easy to surprise by doing that which was forbidden by age-old custom.

How do you assert there were only two caravan raids when many of these raids are not defined except as "raids", without specifying the target? Can you name all the targets to say they were no other caravans? Mohammad sought to cut the throats of the Meccans by intercepting their lifeline - their trade.

I note that Ibn Ishaq defines the aggressive actions of Mohammad and his followers in 3 distinct ways: raids, attacks, battles. In the many raids, we frequently read in Ibn Ishaq's accounts about the Muslims returning from raids without having fought anyone.

Why did they go out raiding and return without fighting anyone? Could it be that these were soft targets, so poorly defended that the defenders simply surrendered? Were some of these raids merely thefts in the night where they struck targets and carried off spoils before they were detected? Ibn Ishaq does not tell us. Reasonable people will fill in the blanks for themselves.

Lastly, let us not pretend that Medina was Mohammad's first choice. He had previously approached the Thaquf, who rebuffed him. Finding himself rebuffed, he begged them not to tell the Meccans. (Ibn Ishaq pp 192,193)

(As a sidenote, I find it interesting that a self-proclaimed "Prophet of Allah" has no faith in the ability of Allah to protect him but instead demands that his human confederates should protect him exactly as they do their WIVES and CHILDREN! One does not generally find military leaders demanding the same protection as women and children. Particularly not if they believe that God is on their side.)

In fact, he ran about plotting against the Meccans with anyone he could get to listen to him. He and his followers crept out of Mecca in small groups to plot and try to gain more support in the hidden gulley at Al-Aqaba.

The death of his uncle not only made his position in Mecca weaker; lt also removed any restraint his uncle may have exercised over him as far as his behaviour. Would uncle Talib have accepted the nephew he raised to become a thief and war against his own people?

After his uncle's death, he felt secure enough to remain in Mecca for a further 3 years, during which he seems to have never ceased to plot against the Meccans. He sent his thugs out of Mecca to Medina in small groups, so as to avoid the suspicions of the Meccans. And he did not leave Mecca until he had established a sufficient secret power base in Medina from which to activate his war of aggression against his own people.